F the NCAA

[CrimsonNBlue]

NIL helps the non-revenue athletes, too. There are many female student athletes that should be able to profit off of their large social media following (even though that can be icky, they should still be able to get compensated for it).

My concern isn't students making other sources of income. (Particularly in ways unrelated to their sport, I think the Greg Anthony type of examples make the NCAA look extremely dumb). I have a problem with the notion that it shouldn't or can't be restricted. I think, at the very least, that the universities should not be involved in setting up deals for players...and they will immediately.

I've said it before, but I think all you have to do is restrict endorsement deals to Sophomores and above and you avoid most of the problems that would come with using it as a recruiting tool, but no one seemed to agree with me.

Kind of where I was going earlier with the incremental steps. NIL is the place to start be arguments against are really very lacking. I definitely agree that direct compensation from the schools is extremely tricky in practice.

[ousdahl]

And the sophomore and up endorsement idea is interesting.

It kinda makes me think it would still invite the under the table benefits for recruits and freshmen tho, but it’s at least a step in the right direction

[PhDhawk]

Also, the backup left fielder is certainly not getting a full ride.

They are at my school. Backup soccer players where getting full scholarships. Track athletes get full scholarships regardless of how well they do in events with tens of spectators watching.

Definitely not the norm if true and could be a football thing.

Makes me angry to think the wealthy schools are even more stingy with scholarships than the smaller schools. They'll cite Title IX, but that's horseshit.

It will get worse if colleges can start paying players salaries directly.

bye bye college baseball
hockey's gonna really struggle as a club sport
bye bye track
bye bye women's sports outside of basketball at 10 schools and volleyball at 5.

[ousdahl]

Henry Ts logo on the back of Jalen Wilson's jersey.

Circling back to this - when did Nike/adidas logos become so ubiquitous on jerseys?

[CrimsonNBlue]

I always start from a position of rules-restricting-players-is-bad and you better show me a good reason to put this rule in place.

Excluding freshmen from something a sophomore-senior can do because we don't trust coaches and schools to not be shady assholes in recruiting doesn't do it for me.

Make it about the student-athletes, right NCAA?

[PhDhawk]

And the sophomore and up endorsement idea is interesting.

It kinda makes me think it would still invite the under the table benefits for recruits and freshmen tho, but it’s at least a step in the right direction

Most of the top basketball players are OAD, so they're not impacted in any way.
With transfers, teams are gonna just want to make sure players get on campus, they're not gonna worry about getting them a contract if they leave to another school.
And I'd make transfers immediately eligible to play, but again make them not get endorsements for their first year following transfer.

[PhDhawk]

I always start from a position of rules-restricting-players-is-bad and you better show me a good reason to put this rule in place.

Excluding freshmen from something a sophomore-senior can do because we don't trust coaches and schools to not be shady assholes in recruiting doesn't do it for me.

Make it about the student-athletes, right NCAA?

Time has a big impact on ethics.

Making someone wait for something is very different than denying it outright.

[CrimsonNBlue]

They are at my school. Backup soccer players where getting full scholarships. Track athletes get full scholarships regardless of how well they do in events with tens of spectators watching.

Definitely not the norm if true and could be a football thing.

Makes me angry to think the wealthy schools are even more stingy with scholarships than the smaller schools. They'll cite Title IX, but that's horseshit.

It will get worse if colleges can start paying players salaries directly.

bye bye college baseball
hockey's gonna really struggle as a club sport
bye bye track
bye bye women's sports outside of basketball at 10 schools and volleyball at 5.

Maybe so, if we are cynical about it, but that's why Jay Bilas constantly rams down everyone's throat that it is not a financial issue for all the institutions.

Maybe the players are behind funding, staffing (including coaches?), operations, but ahead of the schools in some tiered way with a nod that we all know there are only 2 real revenue sports. Fine, it's still more fair than this.

[NDballer13]

Also, the backup left fielder is certainly not getting a full ride.

They are at my school. Backup soccer players where getting full scholarships. Track athletes get full scholarships regardless of how well they do in events with tens of spectators watching.

School I went to gave out very few, some sports none, full rides for athletic scholarships. IIRC football could give out 10 while men's and women's basketball could each give 2. You had players getting 30% scholarships still being prohibited by NCAA rules from having summer jobs.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I always start from a position of rules-restricting-players-is-bad and you better show me a good reason to put this rule in place.

Excluding freshmen from something a sophomore-senior can do because we don't trust coaches and schools to not be shady assholes in recruiting doesn't do it for me.

Make it about the student-athletes, right NCAA?

Time has a big impact on ethics.

Making someone wait for something is very different than denying it outright.

Depends on context, "justice delayed is justice denied." Less serious here, obviously, than in a criminal justice or civil rights context, but same line of logic would follow.

[PhDhawk]

NIL helps the non-revenue athletes, too. There are many female student athletes that should be able to profit off of their large social media following (even though that can be icky, they should still be able to get compensated for it).

My concern isn't students making other sources of income. (Particularly in ways unrelated to their sport, I think the Greg Anthony type of examples make the NCAA look extremely dumb). I have a problem with the notion that it shouldn't or can't be restricted. I think, at the very least, that the universities should not be involved in setting up deals for players...and they will immediately.

I've said it before, but I think all you have to do is restrict endorsement deals to Sophomores and above and you avoid most of the problems that would come with using it as a recruiting tool, but no one seemed to agree with me.

Kind of where I was going earlier with the incremental steps. NIL is the place to start be arguments against are really very lacking. I definitely agree that direct compensation from the schools is extremely tricky in practice.

I still think there should be some things that are restricted though.

This seems to not allow for any such restriction, base on what I've read.

I feel very different about Sr. Frank Mason getting $10K to do a Free State Brewing commercial than I do Fr. Merv Lindsay getting paid $65,000 to be in a Dimensional Funds corporate calendar.

[Deleted User 863]

If you did something like that, upperclassmen could make x amount a year from endorsements, with major consequences if it was connected to the athletic department, that would be more reasonable.

i.e. one and dones who have no interest in school can look elsewhere because college athletics isn't where they should be.

I agree in theory, but the problem still remains that coaches agents and shoe companies WANT the one and dones in college for a year. So they have historically broken rules to get them to their schools.

[PhDhawk]

I always start from a position of rules-restricting-players-is-bad and you better show me a good reason to put this rule in place.

Excluding freshmen from something a sophomore-senior can do because we don't trust coaches and schools to not be shady assholes in recruiting doesn't do it for me.

Make it about the student-athletes, right NCAA?

Time has a big impact on ethics.

Making someone wait for something is very different than denying it outright.

Depends on context, "justice delayed is justice denied." Less serious here, obviously, than in a criminal justice or civil rights context, but same line of logic would follow.

In this case we're talking about deferring income for 9 months.

That's not even a thing. That kind of stuff happens all the time.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Time has a big impact on ethics.

Making someone wait for something is very different than denying it outright.

Depends on context, "justice delayed is justice denied." Less serious here, obviously, than in a criminal justice or civil rights context, but same line of logic would follow.

In this case we're talking about deferring income for 9 months.

That's not even a thing. That kind of stuff happens all the time.

Does it include backpay?

Again, I think you are well intentioned, I just see that it only negatively affects the freshmen, and I'm not in favor of that considering they're committing no wrongs outside of just being freshmen.


Perhaps maybe the tampering and hush-hush of money exchange that exists now would be more regulated if it is brought up from under the table.

[pdub]

If left unrestricted, you will have college teams trying to outbid the NBA for four years.

Blech.
No thanks.

[NDballer13]

Time has a big impact on ethics.

Making someone wait for something is very different than denying it outright.

Depends on context, "justice delayed is justice denied." Less serious here, obviously, than in a criminal justice or civil rights context, but same line of logic would follow.

In this case we're talking about deferring income for 9 months.

That's not even a thing. That kind of stuff happens all the time.

Do they get to collect 9 months of earning at the end? Or is it a 9 month wait until they can even start earning?

[PhDhawk]

Also, the backup left fielder is certainly not getting a full ride.

They are at my school. Backup soccer players where getting full scholarships. Track athletes get full scholarships regardless of how well they do in events with tens of spectators watching.

School I went to gave out very few, some sports none, full rides for athletic scholarships. IIRC football could give out 10 while men's and women's basketball could each give 2. You had players getting 30% scholarships still being prohibited by NCAA rules from having summer jobs.

I'm not defending the NCAA. My point is that we're grossly undervaluing the worth of a scholarship. The % of student athletes getting them isn't what's relevant. What is relevant is that, compared to taking out student loans and paying off school with interest, a full ride is probably worth about a half million bucks over 4-5 years.

[PhDhawk]

Depends on context, "justice delayed is justice denied." Less serious here, obviously, than in a criminal justice or civil rights context, but same line of logic would follow.

In this case we're talking about deferring income for 9 months.

That's not even a thing. That kind of stuff happens all the time.

Do they get to collect 9 months of earning at the end? Or is it a 9 month wait until they can even start earning?

I guess I should have said deferring when they can start working as a "celebrity endorser".

I'm assuming that if you get paid to do a commercial for Jefferson's you'd actually do a commercial for Jefferson's.

[PhDhawk]

Depends on context, "justice delayed is justice denied." Less serious here, obviously, than in a criminal justice or civil rights context, but same line of logic would follow.

In this case we're talking about deferring income for 9 months.

That's not even a thing. That kind of stuff happens all the time.

Does it include backpay?

Again, I think you are well intentioned, I just see that it only negatively affects the freshmen, and I'm not in favor of that considering they're committing no wrongs outside of just being freshmen.


Perhaps maybe the tampering and hush-hush of money exchange that exists now would be more regulated if it is brought up from under the table.

It's not a negative to freshmen, it's a positive to college student athletes.

I mean, rookie pay scale is longer and more limiting restriction to a player's earning potential than making them finish two semesters of school before becoming a shoe endorser.

I'm not sure that, along with compensating student athletes, there's a notion it has to be with no strings attached and exist in the wild west. That's not the case for almost anyone getting a job anywhere.

[CrimsonNBlue]

They are at my school. Backup soccer players where getting full scholarships. Track athletes get full scholarships regardless of how well they do in events with tens of spectators watching.

School I went to gave out very few, some sports none, full rides for athletic scholarships. IIRC football could give out 10 while men's and women's basketball could each give 2. You had players getting 30% scholarships still being prohibited by NCAA rules from having summer jobs.

I'm not defending the NCAA. My point is that we're grossly undervaluing the worth of a scholarship. The % of student athletes getting them isn't what's relevant. What is relevant is that, compared to taking out student loans and paying off school with interest, a full ride is probably worth about a half million bucks over 4-5 years.

But we are now again confusing cost with value.

If KU Med implants me with an insulin pump for free, I am sure it would have saved me nearly 5 figures in surgery and device cost, but I am not diabetic, so what the hell value am I getting?